FIRST DIVISION
|
BEN-HUR NEPOMUCENO, Petitioner, - versus - ARHBENCEL
ANN LOPEZ, represented by her mother ARACELI LOPEZ, Respondent. |
G.R. No.
181258 Present: PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: March
18, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Respondent Arhbencel Ann Lopez
(Arhbencel), represented by her mother Araceli Lopez (Araceli), filed a
Complaint[1]
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City for recognition and
support against Ben-Hur Nepomuceno (petitioner).
Born on June 8, 1999, Arhbencel claimed to have been
begotten out of an extramarital affair of petitioner with Araceli; that
petitioner refused to affix his signature on her Certificate of Birth; and that,
by a handwritten note dated August 7, 1999, petitioner nevertheless obligated
himself to give her financial support in the amount of P1,500 on the 15th and 30th days of each month beginning
August 15, 1999.
Arguing that her filiation to petitioner was
established by the handwritten note, Arhbencel prayed that petitioner be
ordered to: (1) recognize her as his child, (2) give her support pendente lite in the
increased amount of P8,000 a month, and (3)
give her adequate monthly financial support until she reaches the age of
majority.
Petitioner
countered that Araceli had not proven that he was the father of Arhbencel; and
that he was only forced to execute the handwritten note on account of threats
coming from the National People’s Army.[2]
By Order of P3,000 a month.
After Arhbencel rested her case, petitioner
filed a demurrer to evidence which the trial court granted by Order dated
The trial court held that, among
other things, Arhbencel’s Certificate of Birth was not prima facie evidence of her filiation to petitioner as it did not bear
petitioner’s signature; that petitioner’s handwritten undertaking to provide
support did not contain a categorical acknowledgment that Arhbencel is his
child; and that there was no showing that petitioner performed any overt act of
acknowledgment of Arhbencel as his illegitimate child after the execution of
the note.
On appeal by Arhbencel, the Court of
Appeals, by Decision of P4,000 every 15th and 30th days of the month, or a total of P8,000
a month.
The appellate court found that from
petitioner’s payment of Araceli’s hospital bills when she gave birth to
Arhbencel and his subsequent commitment to provide monthly financial support,
the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that he was Arhbencel’s father;
that petitioner merely acted in bad faith in omitting a statement of paternity
in his handwritten undertaking to provide financial support; and that the
amount of P8,000 a month was reasonable for Arhbencel’s subsistence and
not burdensome for petitioner in view of his income.
His Motion for Reconsideration having
been denied by Resolution dated
Petitioner contends that nowhere in
the documentary evidence presented by Araceli is an explicit statement made by
him that he is the father of Arhbencel; that absent recognition or
acknowledgment, illegitimate children are not entitled to support from the
putative parent; that the supposed payment made by him of Araceli’s hospital
bills was neither alleged in the complaint nor proven during the trial; and
that Arhbencel’s claim of paternity and filiation was not established by clear
and convincing evidence.
Arhbencel avers in her Comment that
petitioner raises questions of fact which the appellate court had already
addressed, along with the issues raised in the present petition.[8]
The petition is impressed with merit.
The relevant provisions of the Family
Code[9] that
treat of the right to support are Articles 194 to 196, thus:
Article 194. Support compromises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.
The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the preceding paragraph shall include his schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work.
Article 195. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the following are obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article:
1. The spouses;
2. Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
3. Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter;
4. Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; and
5. Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.
Article 196. Brothers and sisters not legitimately related, whether of the full or half-blood, are likewise bound to support each other to the full extent set forth in Article 194, except only when the need for support of the brother or sister, being of age, is due to a cause imputable to the claimant's fault or negligence. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Arhbencel’s
demand for support, being based on her claim of filiation to petitioner as his
illegitimate daughter, falls under Article 195(4). As such, her entitlement to support from
petitioner is dependent on the determination of her filiation.
Herrera v. Alba[10] summarizes the laws, rules, and jurisprudence
on establishing filiation, discoursing in relevant part as follows:
Laws,
Rules, and Jurisprudence
Establishing
Filiation
The relevant provisions of the Family Code provide as follows:
ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
x x x x
ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The relevant sections of Rule 130 provide:
SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
This Court's rulings further specify what incriminating acts are acceptable as evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA, a case petitioner often cites, we stated that the issue of paternity still has to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. Under Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative father was considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved filiation. However, a student permanent record, a written consent to a father's operation, or a marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures are sufficient to establish filiation. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In
the present case, Arhbencel relies, in the main, on the handwritten note
executed by petitioner which reads:
I, Ben-Hur C. Nepomuceno, hereby
undertake to give and provide financial support in the amount of P1,500.00 every fifteen and thirtieth day of each month for a
total of P3,000.00 a month starting Aug. 15, 1999, to Ahrbencel Ann Lopez, presently in the custody of her mother
Araceli Lopez without the necessity of demand, subject to adjustment later
depending on the needs of the child and my income.
The abovequoted note does not contain
any statement whatsoever about Arhbencel’s filiation to petitioner. It is, therefore, not within the ambit of
Article 172(2) vis-à-vis Article 175
of the Family Code which admits as competent evidence of illegitimate filiation
an admission of filiation in a private handwritten instrument signed by the
parent concerned.
The note cannot also be accorded the
same weight as the notarial agreement to support the child referred to in Herrera. For it is not even notarized. And Herrera
instructs that the notarial agreement must be accompanied by the putative
father’s admission of filiation to be an acceptable evidence of filiation. Here, however, not only has petitioner not
admitted filiation through contemporaneous actions. He has consistently denied it.
The only other documentary evidence submitted
by Arhbencel, a copy of her Certificate of Birth,[11]
has no probative value to establish filiation to petitioner, the latter not
having signed the same.
At bottom, all that Arhbencel really
has is petitioner’s handwritten undertaking to provide financial support to her
which, without more, fails to establish her claim of filiation. The Court is mindful that the best interests
of the child in cases involving paternity and filiation should be advanced. It is, however, just as mindful of the
disturbance that unfounded paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of
the putative father’s legitimate family.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of
Appeals Decision of
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in
the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 117-120.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa; id. at 53-65.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Executive Order No. 209 as amended.
[10] G.R. No.
148220,
[11] Rollo, p. 121.